Not snarkily, do you have any basis to assess the “worth” that these reforms present?
Because:
I don’t know how just it is to set, by rule, a hard cap for non-economic damages. The facts of a certain case of negligence will determine the amount of damages - it does no victim any good (and it does insurance companies a whole lot of good) to unilaterally and monolithically cap damages where there can be cases where these damages are exceeded and for good reason. I mean do you not think that it’s unfair that if a doctor amputates the wrong leg, effectively rendering you a double amputee for the rest of your life (assuming original amputation still has to occur), you should be compensated for the amount of pain and suffering that creates in your life? really? Opponents will yammer on that that’s an unlikely scenario, but you’re balancing the cost of undercompensating such an unlikely scenario (which does happen) with the cost of overcompensating some other (in my opinion, way less likely, especially because of appeals) scenario where a jury just decided to go rampant and award non-economic damages that have absolutely no bearing to the amount of injury suffered by the plaintiff.
I won’t really discuss punitive damages - they’re typically rare for professional negligence cases. It takes alot to sustain a punitive damage award, they’re not dished out lightly. To the extent that they’re even awarded, sure, limit away if that floats your boat, but then again that destroys the punishing nature of punitives.
Unfortunately, the collateral source rule sucks for 2 reasons:
- your insurers will still keep their subrogation clauses, so you lose out doubly.
- It transfers the cost of a professional’s malpractice to the collateral source, which would reduce the incentive to render competent services, which is part of the reason for a regime of professional, rather than ordinary, negligence.
Statute of limitations for one year? That’s a little oppressive (it can only serve to help the defendant/insurer here) and it doesn’t really provide any savings in any fairness/incentivization sense. It’s savings by procedural fiat, effectively. I really can’t see a justification to do that (other than the aforementioned fact that it’s hugely helpful to insurers)
J&S liability, again like the collateral source rule, shifts the burdens of a professional’s negligence, this time onto the plaintiff. Now the plaintiff has to prove who did what damage and in what proportion to total damages before he can recover a dime. It makes the prosecution of your suit more expensive and victory less probable (thus, a Plaintiff’s attorney is less willing to take the case which reduces the availability of “justice”). That’s pretty harsh in a medical case, and it’s unfair to the victim. Medmal doesn’t see the potential abuses of J&S liability like an example with normal, everyday negligence where the Plaintiff seeks out the big pocket defendant for his/her 1% of liability so the plaintiff can “win big”. All doctors (probably) carry generally the same, high amounts of liability coverage, so you’re shifting costs for no apparent benefit (again, other than the apparent reason of making it harder for a Plaintiff to prevail, period)
I mean if you read all that (not saying it’s gospel) and still think it’s worth the ~$33.00 per year savings that “tort reform” would bestow upon each person, that’s fine. But I don’t think many people would agree that it’s worth it.
